1. Dispute regarding the relocation of a petrol filling station situated adjacent to a protected ecological zone. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 469
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. Punchhi, CJI., S. C. Agarwal, S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
M. C. MEHTA, PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (REGD. LINK ROAD FILLING STATION), RESPONDENTS.
I.A. No. 185 in I.A. No. 18 in W.P. (C) No. 4677 of 1985,
decided on April 7, 1998.
RECORD ON PROCEEDINGS
A facility serving a road cannot be shifted to protect an adjacent ecological zone if the road itself is permitted to exist and cause pollution, as the facility is subservient to the road's utility rather than the zone's ecological purpose.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Protection of ecological zones - Shifting of commercial establishment - Petrol filling station located adjacent to a protected ecological zone - Order to shift based on environmental and ecological attributes of the zone - If the site is adjacent to a road that is not part of the protected zone and allows vehicular traffic and pollution, a filling station serving that road cannot be required to shift solely due to its proximity to the protected zone - The facility is subservient to the road and cannot subserve the purpose of the protected zone. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A petrol filling station was ordered to be shifted because it was adjacent to a protected ecological zone, with the aim of developing the site to match the environment and ecology of said zone. It was undisputed that the site was not part of the protected zone but was adjacent to it and a public road.
Findings of Court:
The claim for shifting is unsustainable because the site adjourns a road used by vehicular traffic which emits smoke. Since air pollution is permitted on the road, the filling station, as an adjunct to the road, should be allowed to remain.
Issues: Whether a petrol filling station should be shifted from its location on the grounds of being adjacent to a protected ecological zone when it primarily serves an adjacent road.
Ratio Decidendi: A commercial facility that is an adjunct to a road and serves the purpose of that road cannot be shifted to protect the ecology of an adjacent zone if the road itself is not restricted or closed to protect that same ecology.
Result: Directed that the petrol filling station need not be shifted from its present location and the alternative space allotted be withdrawn.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention that a site adjacent to a protected ecological zone should be developed to maintain the environment and ecology of said zone. (Para 1 )
3. A facility subservient to a road cannot be expected to serve a protected zone, particularly when the adjacent road already permits pollution. (Para 2 )
4. A facility serving a road cannot be relocated solely for being adjacent to a protected zone if the road itself is not part of that zone. (Para 2 )
5. Direction that the petrol filling station need not be shifted and the alternative land allotment be withdrawn. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. Does adjacency to a protected ecological zone require a site to be developed with the attributes of that zone?
Not if the site is subservient to a road that is not part of the protected zone and is already subject to pollution from vehicular traffic. (Para 2 )
7. Can a commercial facility be shifted to protect the ecology of an adjacent area if the facility is an adjunct to a non-protected road?
No, such a claim is unsustainable if the facility serves the road and the road itself is not closed or protected as part of the ecological zone. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. This dispute pertains to the shifting of the Link Road Petrol-Filling Station, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It is undisputed that the site at which it is constructed is not part of the Ridge area as understood by the Ridge Management Board. It has been found to be adjacent thereto. Suggestion is also afloat that perhaps years back, around the dawn of independence, it was part of the Ridge. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it has ultimately been found to be adjacent to the Ridge area and not part of it. It has been ordered to be shifted on the ground that being adjacent to the Ridge area the site be developed having attributes of the Ridge, its environment and ecology.
2. The claim in that respect appears to us to be unsustainable. If the site is adjacent to the Ridge area on one side, it adjourns the road on the other. Undeniably, the road has not been closed to be part of the Ridge area. Vehicular traffic uses it and emits smoke. If air pollution can be allowed on the road then we see no reason why the filling station, which is an adjunct to the road, cannot be allowed to bear the pollution of the vehicles visiting the filling station. The claim of the Ridge Management Board and others of that thinking cannot be allowed to prevail over the hard realities of the situation that this filling station is subservient to the road. It cannot subserve the purpose of the Ridge. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the Link Road Petrol Filling Station need not be shifted from its present location.
3. The alternative space allotted to the filling station be withdrawn. The Land & Development Office may retain the possession of the land which was proposed to be allotted to it.
Court Masters
